United States v. Eckstein, 222 U.S. 130 (1911)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 222 U.S. 127, click here.

United States v. Eckstein


No. 52


Argued November 10, 1911
Decided December 4, 1911
222 U.S. 130

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Section 7 of the Dingley Tariff Act of June 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 159, known as the similitude clause, does not require that there shall be similarity of material, quality, texture, and use in all four particulars, but a substantial similarity in one particular may be adequate to classify an article thereunder.

Imitation horsehair was properly classified under the similitude clause with cotton yarn enumerated in paragraph 302 of the Tariff Act instead of with silk yarn under paragraph 385, there being a substantial similitude with the former both as to material and use, even if not as to quality or texture.

167 F. 802 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the correct classification, under the Tariff Act of 1897 of artificial horsehair, are stated in the opinion.